Hi and thanks for visiting the best Ravens forum on the planet. You do not have to be a member to browse the various forums, but in order to post and interact with your purple brethren, you will have to **register**. It only takes a couple of minutes. You can also use your Facebook account to log in....just click on the blue 'FConnect' link at the very top of the page.

Re: McKinnie ?

I love how you hear fans saying things like "we wouldn't have won the superbowl without.....".

Yeah no shit, we wouldn't have won the superbowl without a number of different players. Comments like that are silly and obvious.

Maybe we should live in a world where a superbowl team can win a superbowl without any of their starting players!

That's sort of silly. Some players made a bigger impact than others. McKinnie over Oher was clearly, demonstrably better. That's all posters are saying. And while no one is irreplaceable, to date, McKinnie has not been replaced, and there are few options available to replace him, as has amply been discussed.

Re: McKinnie ?

I love how you hear fans saying things like "we wouldn't have won the superbowl without.....".

Yeah no shit, we wouldn't have won the superbowl without a number of different players. Comments like that are silly and obvious.

Maybe we should live in a world where a superbowl team can win a superbowl without any of their starting players!

I would say the play of the OL was the single biggest factor in the teams post season success because without that Flacco wouldn't have went on the run he did.It seems like the best lines are the ones that have continuity and not the ones who are constantly shifting players around from position to position.They can depend on the two OG's that are starting right now and on Oher at RT and they should stay put.

Re: McKinnie ?

Originally Posted by RavensRule21215

That's sort of silly. Some players made a bigger impact than others. McKinnie over Oher was clearly, demonstrably better. That's all posters are saying. And while no one is irreplaceable, to date, McKinnie has not been replaced, and there are few options available to replace him, as has amply been discussed.

That's not my point. Of course we wouldn't have won the SB without a number of players. We wouldn't have won the SB without Flacco, Yanda, Rice, KO, Tucker, Pitta, Ngata, hell, maybe even Upshaw and Kruger. Its just people like to point at the players that aren't on our roster anymore (I'm obviously hoping McKinnie is back soon) like Boldin, yet they forget to mention that there are a bunch of players on our roster right now, that would have also been irreplaceable in the SB run. There are also additional players added to the roster that would have likely made the SB run even easier.

Re: McKinnie ?

Originally Posted by leachisabeast

That's not my point. Of course we wouldn't have won the SB without a number of players. We wouldn't have won the SB without Flacco, Yanda, Rice, KO, Tucker, Pitta, Ngata, hell, maybe even Upshaw and Kruger. Its just people like to point at the players that aren't on our roster anymore (I'm obviously hoping McKinnie is back soon) like Boldin, yet they forget to mention that there are a bunch of players on our roster right now, that would have also been irreplaceable in the SB run. There are also additional players added to the roster that would have likely made the SB run even easier.

leach, you missed the point. Flacco, Rice, Pitta, etc. played at their usual positions. With McKinnie...Oher was back to RT and KO was @ Lg, and that bolstered our OLine to the max.
Without McKinnie, where/who do you line up the OLinemen at? THAT is the point of his upgrading 3 positions... Bc

Re: McKinnie ?

Originally Posted by BcRaven

leach, you missed the point. Flacco, Rice, Pitta, etc. played at their usual positions. With McKinnie...Oher was back to RT and KO was @ Lg, and that bolstered our OLine to the max.
Without McKinnie, where/who do you line up the OLinemen at? THAT is the point of his upgrading 3 positions... Bc

A good comparison might be the two Denver-Baltimore games.The regular season game with Oher at LT that Denver won.Flacco was sacked 3 times and the Denver defense got 9 hits on him.In the playoff game that the Ravens won with McKinnie at LT.Flacco was sacked 1 time and the Denver defense got a total of 3 hits on him.

Re: McKinnie ?

Originally Posted by bmorecareful

I'm not at all sure that McKinnie's play at LT was the SOLE factor, or even the most important factor, in the Ravens' Super Bowl run. Go back and look at Filmstudy's grades of McKinnie during the playoffs, and you'll find that McKinnie wasn't actually playing all that great overall. Flacco and the offense were stepping up and making plays despite that.

Exactly. The easy answer is that putting McKinnie in as LT made the difference, but correlation is not causation. I am sure I am in the minority, but I think that KO at left guard had the bigger impact. Flacco all throughout the post season was able to step up into the pocket - which never existed when anyone else playing left guard was getting knocked back - and make one big play after another. It is entirely possible that replacing McKinnie with any average LT would net the same results, as long as KO remained at left guard.

Originally Posted by Purpleguy

If you watch the mic'ed up highlights of the AFC Championship there is a part where Reed is on the bench saying "this is the o-line we have been talking about all year. They're invincible".

And if you watch the mic'ed up highlights of the Super Bowl, you can clearly hear Flacco saying - after being sacked on a completely missed blocking assignment, "I don't know what McKinnie was doing out there."

Re: McKinnie ?

Originally Posted by leachisabeast

That's not my point. Of course we wouldn't have won the SB without a number of players. We wouldn't have won the SB without Flacco, Yanda, Rice, KO, Tucker, Pitta, Ngata, hell, maybe even Upshaw and Kruger. Its just people like to point at the players that aren't on our roster anymore (I'm obviously hoping McKinnie is back soon) like Boldin, yet they forget to mention that there are a bunch of players on our roster right now, that would have also been irreplaceable in the SB run. There are also additional players added to the roster that would have likely made the SB run even easier.

Re: McKinnie ?

The issue with McKinnie isn't about what you get when he's motivated and properly conditioned, it's that it takes too many circumstances and too much time for him to get there. Ozzie is going to lowball him and he probably won't have much choice, but to take it.

"When questioned, the Elders explained that they were in search of magical powers. However, they're actually searching for the whereabouts of a certain ring. This ring is a legendary treasure that long ago was known to exist"

Re: McKinnie ?

Originally Posted by alien bird

Exactly. The easy answer is that putting McKinnie in as LT made the difference, but correlation is not causation. I am sure I am in the minority, but I think that KO at left guard had the bigger impact. Flacco all throughout the post season was able to step up into the pocket - which never existed when anyone else playing left guard was getting knocked back - and make one big play after another. It is entirely possible that replacing McKinnie with any average LT would net the same results, as long as KO remained at left guard. (snip)

I think most would agree with you actually. It's not that Mckinney was that good, it's just that the move improved 3 positions, the biggest jump being at LG. That's why I've been saying I'd sooner take Random Scrub-KO-Gradkowski-Yanda-Oher over any combination featuring Oher at left and KO at right.

Re: McKinnie ?

Originally Posted by TheSpiderWebb

I think most would agree with you actually. It's not that Mckinney was that good, it's just that the move improved 3 positions, the biggest jump being at LG. That's why I've been saying I'd sooner take Random Scrub-KO-Gradkowski-Yanda-Oher over any combination featuring Oher at left and KO at right.

Wouldn't that also include moving KO to LT? (That you'd be against it, that is.)